Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: "John Slade" <hitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:25:46 -0700
"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:V4udnUbsBqZXbhDZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Slade wrote:
"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ybudnYAP8vWUdxHZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Snit wrote:
"John Slade" <hitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
448caf61$0$32726$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/11/06 6:00 PM:
It's not my word. I'm applying the Maccie "logic".
Mac Zealot logic is not applying the same rules to the Mac and OS X
you
apply to the rest of the computing world.
It's so sad to see people so brainwashed by one company. Shit I wish
I
could do that, I could make a bundle off these fools.
I prefer my customers to be intelligent and to understand what I am
offering
them, not fools as you do. Sad that you do not have the same business
ethic.
I know that a lot of mom n' pop PC repair shops that do take advantage of
their customers. They charge for removing viruses and malware.
I charge for fixing a computer no matter what. I don't work for
free. However when I finish with them, they know how to protect their
systems. I install the AV software and show them how to use it. Most
don't do anything but let it run and update late at nigh while sleeping.
Some don't like automatic scans so they do them manually. Oh and while
all that AV stuff is running, waiting for something to check, it uses
ZERO CPU time and very little memory.
Erm... no... all processes can use a bit of cpu time and do consume
memory.
Otherwise the program is totally useless. The software, if it
is to use 0% cpu time, will have to be in a wait state, but it does use
some resources.
You said "can use". That means they can also not use CPU time when they're
dormant in memory. You see the scanner is not run until something is
downloaded or run. When this happens the scanner is told to run and check
things. The only resources it uses in wait state is memory. Very little
memory like I said. You're rambling now.
>Running the AV in the background at night is a waste of
power. Some won't do that.
Is it a waste of power to post on USENET all damn day? Seriously, the
power it uses is tiny, you do know the thing on PCs that use the most power
is the monitor, last I heard the monitor can power down the screen to save
power. I also heard you don't need the screen while doing a scan at night
while you're asleep.
John
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: GreyCloud
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- References:
- Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: John Slade
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: George Graves
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Josh McKee
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Sandman
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Josh McKee
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Sandman
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Josh McKee
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Sandman
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Josh McKee
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: John Slade
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: GreyCloud
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: John Slade
- Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- From: GreyCloud
- Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- Next by Date: Re: Apple dries up in the Sun
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|